Silverstone v. Hanley

• Decision Date: 02 November 1909
• Citation: 104 P. 767,55 Wash. 458
• Parties: SILVERSTONE et al. v. HANLEY et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

104 P. 767

55 Wash. 458

SILVERSTONE et al. v. HANLEY et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 2, 1909

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson Judge.

Action by Sadie Silverstone and others against A. M. Hanley and others. Decree for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Judd &amp Olson, for appellants.

Vince H. Faben, S. H. Kelleran, and E. A. Wright, for respondents.

GOSE J.

This is an action to quiet title to certain real estate. From a decree in favor of the respondents, the case was appealed to this court.

The only question presented is whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law support the decree. In the absence of any statement of facts or bill of exceptions, the findings will be presumed to be responsive to the pleadings. The court found that the respondent Hanley entered into the possession of the premises prior to the year 1893 under claim of right and title; that he fenced the land with a solid fence planted an orchard thereon; that he continued in the open and notorious possession thereof under such claim of right until the year 1901, when he sold and conveyed the same to the respondent Harn and his wife; that Harn's wife died intestate before the commencement of the action, leaving her surviving her husband and five minor children, the co-respondents. The court further found 'that the defendant Harn and the defendant Hanley and the minor heirs of Adela Harn have continuously for more than 10 years prior to the commencement of this action openly and notoriously held, maintained, and occupied the said premises to the exclusion of all other persons, including the plaintiff and those by, through, and under whom the said plaintiffs claim title.' The findings are substantially reiterated in the conclusions of law. The decree was that the respondents 'are the owners of the legal and equitable title' to the land.

The appellants, the owners of the record title, assert that other findings, which we shall notice, destroyed the efficacy of a finding of title by adverse possession. The substance of the findings relied upon by the appellants is that in the month of November, 1899, the respondent Hanley received a delinquency tax certificate upon the premises for the years 1893 to 1899, both years inclusive, the premises having been assessed to an unknown owner; that he continued to pay the taxes to and including the year 1901, and that his co-respondents thereafter paid the taxes. In effect, the appellants urge that the taking out of the delinquency tax certificate by the respondent Hanley was inconsistent with the claim of ownership, and that the findings as an entirety negative a title by adverse possession. Giving the findings first mentioned a liberal interpretation, as we think we must, when read in connection with the decree, they are sufficient to establish an adverse possession taken and held in good faith under a claim of right for the statutory period. Where the findings are not consistent with each other, if there is one or more which support the decree, it will be upheld. Howey v. Bingham, 14 Wash. 450, 44 P. 886. However, the...